|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Why I Don’t Believe the Theory of Evolution
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 SteveI think this is (and has been) really interesting, but we should tone down the insults against ideas, groups, and individuals. Please... |
|||||||||||||||
|
Please also read his comments (posted at the bottom of page 7 of this thread) on Intelligent Design, origin of life, how evolution should be taught in schools, and how the scientific community reacts to skeptics of the theory of evolution. <<As I said, America is a wonderful country where you can find truly strange combinations such as this.>> What “truly strange” combination are you referring to? A scientist who believes in God? <<However, I urge the careful reader of this to notice that all the arguments for ID and the like are always found in video discussions…>> He never discussed Intelligent Design. Why are you so quick to mischaracterize the video - and before you had even watched it?! <<I usually look wide for somebody's credentials before spending time uselessly with fanatics.>> Tour is a fanatic?! What’s with the name calling? <<I have actually met somebody precicely like this in person, a professor of geophysics at Los Alamos National Laboratory. America is a wondeful country; you can find really strange combinations.>> You met someone “precisely” like Tour? And you made that comment before watching the video? Do you think you jump to conclusions much too quickly? |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 19-Feb-23, 08:44 |
I finally had the opportunity to watch not only that video but a couple of others, too with James Tour. All very interesting, especially ine where he himself interviews Stephen Meyer, which I recommend. The whole point of that discussion concerns various aspects of Intelligent Design. www.youtube.com Now, it may well be that I don't understand what Intelligent Design means, but the way I have defined it to myself, Tour certainly supports it. Tour is a deeply religious person (of Jewish decent but turned Christian). To me, believing in God means that you believe in Intelligent Design. It might not always be vice versa (there may be ID people who don't believe in God?). |
|||||||||||||||
|
I’ve only seen the first half of it so far, but intend to watch the last half later. Thanks for posting it. As far as Tour’s position on ID, I think someone can separate his personal beliefs from his profession. While Tour is a Messianic Jew, I think he can practice science just like an atheist would; in other words, his personal beliefs wouldn’t impact his work as a scientist. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 19-Feb-23, 09:39 |
I agree, and I never doubted this. I thought you said that Tour would not support ID. I think he clearly does. I also liked the quality of the discussion in that video. Some matters I don't agree with such as the odd distinction between two kinds of negentropy by Meyer, for which there is no scientific grounds. Boltzmann's famous equation defines the relationship between entropy and probability en.wikipedia.org From that discussion I posted I got the impression that James Tour has to some extent 'mixed' his belief/interest in ID with his speciality - organic chemistry - and conducted some experiments in this vein. However, I don't now any details of this and will have to look it up at some point. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Hi Softie Well I was, on account of you posted the article, but no worries > "I have nothing against people believing in a Creator, but I have to object when such people put mocking, ridicule and direct insults in their description of real science". Same here. > I think this is (and has been) really interesting, but we should tone down the insults against ideas, groups, and individuals. Please... Absolutely x |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
You’re obviously free to characterize Tour however you like, but I’m going by what he says: <<I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (sometimes called “ID”) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments and I find some of them intriguing, but I prefer to be free of that intelligent design label. As a modern-day scientist, I do not know how to prove intelligent design using my most sophisticated analytical tools— the canonical tools are, by their own admission, inadequate to answer the intelligent design question. I cannot lay the issue at the doorstep of a benevolent creator or even an impersonal intelligent designer. All I can presently say is that my chemical tools do not permit my assessment of intelligent design.>> www.jmtour.com <<Some matters I don't agree with such as the odd distinction between two kinds of negentropy by Meyer, for which there is no scientific grounds.>> As far as the 2nd Law, I thought his distinction between order and complexity was interesting. |
|||||||||||||||
|
It defies logic to think someone could look at the complexity of a cell and think that complexity arose by chance. For all the talk of religious beliefs affecting someone’s science, the far greater and more prevalent case is atheism affecting someone’s science. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
@Thumper At least Darwin didn’t know how complex a cell is. Today’s scientists don’t have that excuse. |
|||||||||||||||
|
But we know from the Bible that Jesus Christ - against odds that are beyond astronomical - fulfilled hundreds of centuries-old Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. We haven’t been able to demonstrate how evolution - against astronomical odds - managed to form the complexity of a cell (let alone complex organs.) |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 19-Feb-23, 22:33 |
Thumper and Vic Vic: <It really is ridiculous.> I wish you two would show some respect for basic science (also in the field of biological evolution). Complexity is (by definition) difficult to unravel. Science has over the last 100 years unraveled quite a lot of it, nowadays down to the atomic level and to the realm of quantum chemistry. Knowing rather intimately about this, and having participated with tiny contributions to it myself, it rather seems ridiculous to note the mocking, ridiculing and outright insulting attitude you exhibit about this in these forums. <But we know from the Bible that Jesus Christ - against odds that are beyond astronomical - fulfilled hundreds of centuries-old Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament.> Yes, that is interesting, but there are of course other interpretations of those often quite vague prophesies, which you want to interpret your way (I respect that). We also know from other very old documents how very similar or at least analogous prophesies were made by other cultures. <We haven’t been able to demonstrate how evolution - against astronomical odds - managed to form the complexity of a cell (let alone complex organs.)> No, we haven't demonstrated that yet in detail, but as earlier discussions in these forums have shown, there are good theories of how that may have occurred (for example the eye or the heart). It is a landmark and typical of science to have a difficult problem to solve, but not to throw out working theories with the bathwater until it is necessary. We didn't throw out Newton because of Einstein, nor Einstein because of Bohr. To do that is ridiculous. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic: <It really is ridiculous.> <<I wish you two would show some respect for basic science (also in the field of biological evolution). Complexity is (by definition) difficult to unravel. Science has over the last 100 years unraveled quite a lot of it, nowadays down to the atomic level and to the realm of quantum chemistry. Knowing rather intimately about this, and having participated with tiny contributions to it myself, it rather seems ridiculous to note the mocking, ridiculing and outright insulting attitude you exhibit about this in these forums.>> As a scientist, you know how complex a cell is and how complex DNA is. I honestly don’t know how you can think that kind of complexity arose by chance, absent your atheism. As someone (can’t remember who) once said, If you’re only looking for naturalistic explanations, that’s all you’re going to get. I understand why scientists can’t attribute the complexity and diversity of life forms to God, but that doesn’t mean the best naturalistic explanation is true (or, imo, even credible.) <<<But we know from the Bible that Jesus Christ - against odds that are beyond astronomical - fulfilled hundreds of centuries-old Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament.>>> <<Yes, that is interesting, but there are of course other interpretations of those often quite vague prophesies,>> The prophesies really aren’t vague at all. I know and have posted Messianic prophecies that are quite specific, including where the Messiah would be born, when He would appear, how He would die, why He would die, etc. Those prophecies stand on a plain reading, though the prophecy of when the Messiah would appear requires knowledge of days representing years: lifehopeandtruth.com www.gotquestions.org <<which you want to interpret your way (I respect that).>> It’s really not my way, it’s the mainstream way. <<We also know from other very old documents how very similar or at least analogous prophesies were made by other cultures.>> I’d love to hear about them - particularly if they are anywhere near the number and specificity of Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. Not to mention the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ (by which He overcame death for all who believe in Him) is reflective of the sacrificial system of animals that Jews performed in the Old Testament. Hebrews chapter 10 speaks about this, though it’s spoken of in other places of the Bible as well and it’s why Jesus Christ was referred to by John the Baptist as “the Lamb of God.” “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29) <<<We haven’t been able to demonstrate how evolution - against astronomical odds - managed to form the complexity of a cell (let alone complex organs.)>>> <<No, we haven't demonstrated that yet in detail, but as earlier discussions in these forums have shown, there are good theories of how that may have occurred (for example the eye or the heart). It is a landmark and typical of science to have a difficult problem to solve, but not to throw out working theories with the bathwater until it is necessary.>> I don’t think the theory of evolution is a working theory beyond its ability to describe changes within a species. I don’t think it works at all beyond that and (fortunately for Darwin) doesn’t have to. <<We didn't throw out Newton because of Einstein, nor Einstein because of Bohr. To do that is ridiculous.>> I think there is a tremendous difference between changes within a species and saying the mechanism which drives that created millions of plants and animals and humans. But because evolution is the best (and really only) naturalistic, non-supernatural explanation for the diversity of life we see today, it will always be viewed as credible by most atheists (whether they’re scientists or not.) But, imo, that doesn’t mean it is credible. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
When someone can look at the complexity of a cell and DNA and think that arose by chance, it brings to my mind these verses written by the Apostle Paul (who himself was an unbeliever until he encountered the Resurrected Christ on the Road to Damascus.) “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” (Romans 1:20) “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 21-Feb-23, 20:28 |
Repeating this over and over again doesn't make it fact, or true, except for those who believe it in the first place. The evolution of species has been descussed ad nauseam before in these clubs, but all examples of it are immediately neglected, ignored or denied by 'believers'. One that I have personally cited time and time again is quite clearly envisagable in the evolution of humans (H. sapiens). This is easily accessible on the Web for anyone who wants to understand and be educated in the subject. <But because evolution is the best (and really only) naturalistic, non-supernatural explanation for the diversity of life we see today, it will always be viewed as credible by most atheists (whether they’re scientists or not.)> Again this negative reference to atheists, showing the true origin of the passionate downgrading of evolution theory and of 'evolutionists' despite equally passionate attempts to deny it, and to call evolution a religious belief by atheists. These people are apparently unable to understand a clean, unbiased, approach towards the truth - wherever it leads us. They 'know' God exists, so everything starts from there. What they don't understand is that all this 'knowledge' is modulated and interpreted by humans over thousands of years, which is why we have not only a number of different religions, but quite some scattering within Christianity alone. But, of course, again, 'my interpretation' is the only right one, which is ascertained and defended by pages of posts in clubs like this one. Yes, they all show 'clear evidence' - of course -but claiming that makes it even ore dubious to trust the very same people not only criticise but mock, belittle and insult thousands of scientists working on biological evolution for over a hundred years. Now THAT is simply pathetic! |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<Repeating this over and over again doesn't make it fact, or true, except for those who believe it in the first place.>> Are you claiming that the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection has been shown to create species? My understanding is it hasn’t (and I’m not talking about a definition of species that permits 5,000 “species” of fruit flies and 17,500 “species” of butterflies.) Despite decades-long experiments with fruit flies and bacteria, which have very short generational spans, fruit flies remain fruit flies and bacteria remain bacteria. <<The evolution of species has been descussed ad nauseam before in these clubs, but all examples of it are immediately neglected, ignored or denied by 'believers'.>> I agree it’s been discussed ad nauseam, but there’s no concrete evidence for macroevolution. Evolutionists have some unquantifiable number of alleged and disputed transitional fossils (some of which require much fantasizing and extrapolation to fill in what’s not there) and similar genetic makeups among animals and humans, which could just as easily be attributed to a common design. All houses, for example, have foundations, floors, walls and roofs but they’re not all the same nor were they all created by the same architects and builders. It’s just a common design. <<One that I have personally cited time and time again is quite clearly envisagable in the evolution of humans (H. sapiens). This is easily accessible on the Web for anyone who wants to understand and be educated in the subject.>> As I recall, the two examples you previously cited - Neanderthals and Denisovan - were classified as human beings, not pre-human transitional species. <<<But because evolution is the best (and really only) naturalistic, non-supernatural explanation for the diversity of life we see today, it will always be viewed as credible by most atheists (whether they’re scientists or not.)>>> <<Again this negative reference to atheists, showing the true origin of the passionate downgrading of evolution theory and of 'evolutionists' despite equally passionate attempts to deny it, and to call evolution a religious belief by atheists. These people are apparently unable to understand a clean, unbiased, approach towards the truth - wherever it leads us.>> Darwin had zero evidence to support his claim that a blind, unguided process of random variation and natural selection created millions of species of plants and animals and human beings. And the evidence isn’t much better today - you’ve got an unknown number of disputed transitional fossils and similar genetic makeups among animals. And considering humans and animals live on the same planet, breathe the same air and eat the same kinds of foods (plants and animals) that’s really not surprising. <<They 'know' God exists, so everything starts from there.>> And atheists “know” God doesn’t exist so everything starts from there! Atheists *demand* a naturalistic explanation. And as I said before, if that’s all you’re looking for, that’s all you’re going to get - but that doesn’t mean the best naturalistic explanation (which, imo, is still weak) is true or even credible. <<What they don't understand is that all this 'knowledge' is modulated and interpreted by humans over thousands of years, which is why we have not only a number of different religions, but quite some scattering within Christianity alone.>> As far as I know, the three major religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) all accept the Old Testament as a holy book (though Muslims think Genesis was tampered with to say all nations would be blessed through Isaac, instead of Ishmael.) Christianity’s foundational text (the New Testament) is disputed by everyone but Christians, though I think everyone (or nearly everyone) agrees Jesus Christ lived and was crucified; the disagreement is over who He was - a prophet or the Messiah and Son of God. <<But, of course, again, 'my interpretation' is the only right one, which is ascertained and defended by pages of posts in clubs like this one. Yes, they all show 'clear evidence' - of course -but claiming that makes it even ore dubious to trust the very same people not only criticise but mock, belittle and insult thousands of scientists working on biological evolution for over a hundred years.>> My interpretation is based on a plain reading of the text and in most cases is the mainstream interpretation. Maybe most Christians don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument for how it’s symbolic. But I don’t take everything in the Bible literally - I don’t think Jesus Christ meant for people to literally pluck out their eyes or cut off their hands if those body parts offended them (caused them to sin.) I think He was talking about the seriousness of sin - and it’s worth noting the New Testament doesn’t mention anyone plucking out their eyes or cutting off their hands. <<Now THAT is simply pathetic!>> Well that’s your opinion. I don’t see much (if any) evidence that random mutations and natural selection created millions of species of plants and animals and humans. My disbelief in the theory of evolution (beyond changes within a species) isn’t based on the Bible. It’s based on the (imo) paucity of evidence for it. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 22-Feb-23, 00:55 |
Well, unfortunately you don't recall the essence of this, which was NOT Neanderthals and Denisovans, who were both human (Homo) species, at least on the basis of their proven offspring with modern H. sapiens. But, I have now had more than enough of this - there is no use for me to continue since you clearly 'forget' or ignore my contributions, as shown in this case. Instead, you repeat over and over again the same mantra that has been shown not to be true. |
|||||||||||||||
|
I remember a Wiki link and your citing Neanderthals and Denisovans from that Wiki link. Which is why I went to the trouble of finding out whether Neanderthals and Denisovans were classified as humans. I didn’t know it beforehand. <<who were both human (Homo) species, at least on the basis of their proven offspring with modern H. sapiens.>> Ok. <<But, I have now had more than enough of this - there is no use for me to continue since you clearly 'forget' or ignore my contributions, as shown in this case.>> I really don’t. And your putting forget in quotes implies you think I’m lying, which I’m not. My memory isn’t perfect but I do remember a Wiki link and Neanderthals and Denisovans being cited in the text of your post. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but that’s what I remember. <<Instead, you repeat over and over again the same mantra that has been shown not to be true.>> If more “evidence” exists for the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection creating millions of species of plants and animals and humans other than an unknown number of disputed transitional fossils and similar genetic makeups, please share it. There is, imo, at least as much evidence against it. |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<In terms of compressed complexity, cells are without peer in the material world, actualized or imagined. And there is likely far more complexity still to uncover. Even as recently as 1913, when Lawrence Henderson composed his classic The Fitness of the Environment, the cell was a black box, its actual molecular complexity a mysterious unknown. Only as the veil began to lift with the mid-century molecular biological revolution did science begin to glimpse the sophistication of these extraordinary pieces of matter. Subsequently, every decade of research has revealed further depths of complexity. The discovery of ever more intricate structures and systems with each increase in knowledge — including vastly complex DNA topologies and a vast and growing inventory of mini-RNA regulator molecules — tells us there is probably much more to uncover. What we glimpse now may be only a tiny fraction of what remains to be discovered. As Erica Hayden confessed in the journal Nature, “As sequencing and other new technologies spew forth data,” the complexity unearthed by cell biology “has seemed to grow by orders of magnitude. Delving into it has been like zooming into a Mandelbrot set… that reveals ever more intricate patterns as one peers closer at its boundary.” A Third Infinity There is much more to discover about the cell, but even from our current limited knowledge of its depths it is clear that this tiny unit of compact, adaptive sophistication constitutes something like a third infinity. Where the cosmos feels infinitely large and the atomic realm infinitely small, the cell feels infinitely complex.>> <<When we observe the goings-on of protozoans in a drop of pond water or the antics of an amoeboid leucocyte in the human blood stream chasing a bacterium, it is hard to resist the feeling that these microscopic life forms are sentient, autonomous beings. This was the case when we had relatively primitive microscopic technology more than one hundred years ago, and it is all the more so today. It is not just their hunting strategies (seen in a video of a leucocyte chasing its prey, below) that resemble the behaviors of higher organisms. Another striking example is the courtship rituals of ciliates, rituals that include pre-conjugal mating dances, reciprocal learning, repeated touching of prospective mates, and even deceit and cheating when communicating reproductive fitness to potential mates. One of the founders of behaviorism, Herbert Spencer Jennings, strongly suspected that protozoa were sentient. As he confessed, “If Amoeba were a large animal, so as to come within the everyday experience of human beings, its behavior would at once call forth the attribution to it of states of pleasure and pain, of hunger, desire, and the like, on precisely the same basis as we attribute these things to the dog.”>> evolutionnews.org That old saying, “The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it’s stranger than we can imagine” seems to fit with cells. Bizarre. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 22-Feb-23, 07:13 |
<I really don’t. And your putting forget in quotes implies you think I’m lying, which I’m not. My memory isn’t perfect but I do remember a Wiki link and Neanderthals and Denisovans being cited in the text of your post. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but that’s what I remember.> OK, I will have to take your word for it. But it is not funny when you forget the key evidence i presented for speciation in the 'human line'. Of course, it would be a very simple task for you to find out, because it is widely available on the Internet. I have in all cases taken your comments, links etc seriously, and worked on them (as seen from the above exchanges). By contrast, you don't bother about mine. So, unless you take my comments more seriously, I won't be available anymore, which is probably no loss to this club at all. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Ok, I’ll look for it. <<I have in all cases taken your comments, links etc seriously, and worked on them (as seen from the above exchanges).>> I think “in all cases” is an exaggeration. <<By contrast, you don't bother about mine.>> That’s not true, but it’s not always easy, especially when three or four evolutionists were bombarding me in the past with links and long copy-and-pastes. <<So, unless you take my comments more seriously, I won't be available anymore,>> Well it’ll certainly be easier in this club since you appear to be the only regular poster who’s an evolutionist (or who’s interested in the subject.) <<which is probably no loss to this club at all.>> I think it would be. |
|||||||||||||||
|
This video debunks the idea that humans and chimps are 98 percent to 99 percent similar in their DNA and shows how that figure was arrived at. Definitely worth a look and it’s only 7:36. youtu.be Why would scientists manufacture a 98 percent to 99 percent similarity between the human genome and chimp genome and fraudulently report that as fact? Simple. The theory of evolution doesn’t work without a very high similarity between the human genome and chimp genome. The actual similarity is 84.4 percent, and there’s simply not enough time in the theory of evolution to account for that much of a difference. <<This result is important because evolutionary theory has a difficult enough time explaining how only 2% of 3 billion bases could have evolved in the 3–6 million years since they believe chimps and humans shared a common ancestor. They want to avoid the task of explaining how 15 or 20% of three billion bases evolved in such a short time! Natural processes cannot create 369 million letters of precisely coded information in a billion years, let alone a few million years.[xxv] Instead, as shown in the above section on genetics, more time produces more mutations, which lead to more extinctions.>> genesisapologetics.com The reason why scientists are so puzzled over the very significant differences between humans and chimps (in appearance, capabilities, etc.) is they’re working from a manufactured (being generous here and not saying fraudulent) high similarity of 98 percent to 99 percent. |
|||||||||||||||
|
dmaestro 25-Feb-23, 19:20 |
It depends on how you look at it but the similarity is still high. What is interesting is in some ways humans have more similarities to both bonobos and chimps than they do among themselves like we took the better of both. Also keep in mind the evidence suggests our last common ancestor goes back at least 6-7M years ago. That is a long time. Lots can happen. And all it takes is favorable mutations. |
|||||||||||||||
|
dmaestro 25-Feb-23, 19:31 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 25-Feb-23, 20:53 |
The important thing is that it doesn't 'debunk' the key fact that the similarity between human and chimp structural genes is amazingly high. It is just pedantic fussying and asking for controversy to moan about what the exact percentages really are, as they depend on the method of calculation. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimpanzees still share 96 percent sequence identity. There is no denial that chimps are -among animals - the ones closest to humans, but we know that they still are quite dfferent, which is why the close 'DNA identity' is a paradox or an enigma. Or used to be. One needs to realise that the basic functions of life requires a huge 'machinery', which is essentially the same in all animals, in fact in all forms of life! The number of genes, for example, does not correlate with 'intelligence'! Humans have only ca. 20,000 (structural) genes that code for proteins. I don't know how many chimps have, but some species of amoebas have more genes! The Paris japonese flower has a 50 times larger genome than humans, and probably the largest genome known among living organisms. Birch tree also has many more genes than humans. One should realise that green plants in particular are in many ways much more complex than animals. They generally have most of animal functions (one way or another) plus additional capacity to directly utilise the Sun as an energy source, which 'we' are lacking. So what is it in humans that make them so outstanding? We really don't know or understand this as yet, but some new data is emerging that may give us a clue already. The ca. 20,000 genes in humans are genes that code for proteins. They represent only a fraction of the total genme, and we know from work during the last 25 years that many other areas of human DNA is constantly read (so is presumably important). This was earlier thought to be 'trash'. Some of it may still be trash, but humans for example have ca. 40,000 genes in their DNA that code for RNA! The function of some of these RNA molecules is known, they are mostly regulatory, or organizational, and the like. So far, it seems that 'intelligence' (if we may call it that) does correlate with the number of these so-called 'RNA-genes'. What does that mean - or what could it mean? Well, perhaps 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' etc, characteristic of humans are not functions caused by unique chemical reactions (which would require unique enzymes, and structural genes), but are rather a novel result of combination of pre-existing functions. For example perhaps making oscillatory or otherwise cyclical nerve signals possible that might serve as the basis of what we call memory. Everyone is free to speculate, but my predictionis that we will learn much more about this in the next few decades. |
|||||||||||||||
|
I don’t think that’s a long time at all from an evolutionary perspective. <<Lots can happen. And all it takes is favorable mutations.>> And most mutations are neutral or harmful to an organism. Very few are favorable. |
|||||||||||||||
|
I don’t think it’s “pedantic fussying” at all. The greater the difference in the human and chimp genomes, the faster evolution had to happen. At some point, it becomes impossible to believe. |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
